Mike, On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Mike Heinz <michael.he...@qlogic.com> wrote: > Hal, > > But if the original trap had retries > 0, wouldn't resending the trap be what > the issuer intended?
I suppose as there's nothing in the IBA spec that precludes using busy on TrapRepresses although I'd be hard pressed to rationalize using that particularly for SMP traps. -- Hal > I guess I'm confused why treating BUSY as similar to simply never getting a > response at all is a bad thing. In my mind, receiving a BUSY response is like > getting a busy signal when you call someone on the phone - a sign you need to > wait a bit then try again. Similarly, if I call someone and never get an > answer my strategy is going to be to wait, then try again. > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:hal.rosenst...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:16 PM > To: Mike Heinz > Cc: Hefty, Sean; linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: Handling busy responses from the SA > > Mike, > > I'm referring to the receipt of the TrapRepress with busy status. > Wouldn't your patch cause the original Trap to be resent when retries >> 0 ? TrapRepress is essentially a response to Trap and classified as > such by ib_response_mad. Your proposed patch treats a busy as a > timeout and can cause retry of the original sent Trap. > > -- Hal > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
